Comparison of Static and Dynamic Pile Load Tests at Thi Vai International Port in Viet Nam

Comparison of Static and Dynamic Pile Load Tests at Thi Vai
International Port in Viet Nam

Le Phan Ta, Ph.D student, Graduate School of Kanazawa University, Japan (HCMC University of
Architecture, Viet Nam); email: phantale2002@yahoo.com
Tatsunori Matsumoto, Professor, Graduate School of Kanazawa University, Japan; email:
matsumot@t.kanazawa-u.ac.jp
Ha Nguyen Hoang, Engineer, South Vietnam Bridge Road Building Technology Institute, Viet Nam;
email: halasxd55@gmail.com
ABSTRACT: A berth structure, 600 m long and 60 m wide, for handing of loaded containers was completed in
early 2013 as one of the facilities of Thi Vai International Port located on the bank of the Cai Mep river in Viet
Nam. The berth is a quay structure supported by 885 driven spun concrete piles and 156 driven steel pipe piles.
Four test piles, named TSC1, TSC2, TSP1 and TSP2, with different pile lengths and diameters were driven at the
project site in 2011 prior to construction of working piles. Static load tests (SLTs) were conducted for the test
piles to determine the design pile capacity. Dynamic load tests (DLTs) were also carried out for the TSC1 and
TSP1 in order to obtain information for selecting the pile driving system used for the working piles and to
examine the applicability of wave matching analysis (WMA) to derive the static load-displacement curves. A
wave matching analysis program developed by the authors was employed in the WMAs. Good agreement
between the derived and measured static responses was obtained for the TSC1 and TSP1. The identified soil
parameters obtained from the final WMA of the TSC1 and TSP1 were used to predict the static responses of the
TSC2 and TSP2. The predicted load-displacement curves were reasonable matches to the measured ones,
indicating that the identified soil parameters of the test piles could be used for prediction of the static responses
of other constructed piles. Moreover, pile driving termination criterion in this site was examined through the test
piling.
KEYWORDS: static load test, dynamic load test, steel pipe pile, spun concrete pile, wave matching analysis,
pile foundation quality control, berth area
SITE LOCATION: IJGCH-database.kmz (requires Google Earth)
INTRODUCTION
Thi Vai International Port located on the bank of the Cai Mep river in Viet Nam (Fig. 1) is under construction,
with the scheduled start of operation at the end of 2013. A berth structure, 600 m long and 60 m wide, has been
completed in the project as shown in Fig. 2. The berth is a quay structure supported by 885 driven spun concrete
piles (SC pile hereafter) and 156 driven steel pipe piles (SP pile hereafter). Test piling was conducted at the
project site in 2011 to obtain design parameters, to select appropriate driving system, and to seek driving controls
and quality assessment methods for constructed piles.
Four test piles were driven prior to construction of working piles. Two of them were spun concrete piles
designated as TSC1 and TSC2, and the other two piles were open-ended steel pipe piles designated as TSP1 and
TSP2. The TSC1 and TSC2 had outer diameters of 0.7 m and 0.8 m, wall thicknesses of 100 mm and 110 mm,
and lengths of 54 m and 48.7 m, respectively. The TSP1 and TSP2 had outer diameters of 1.0 m and 0.9 m,
respectively, a wall thickness of 12 mm, and lengths of 60 m and 49.9 m, respectively. All the test piles were
driven using a diesel hammer having a ram mass of 10 tons. Dynamic load tests (DLTs) were carried out at the
end of initial driving (EOD) and re-striking tests were conducted after curing periods of 7 days for the TSC1 and
34 days for the TSP1. Static load tests (SLTs) were carried out 10 days later for the TSC1 and 14 days later for
the TSP1. SLT was also carried out for the TSC2 and TSP2 after the corresponding curing time of 17 days and
27 days from the completion of the driving work.
Submitted: 19 April 2013; Published: 26 August 2013
Reference: Phan, T.L., Matsumoto, T., and Nguyen, H.H. (2013). Comparison of Static and Dynamic Pile
Load Tests at Thi Vai International port in Viet Nam. International Journal of Geoengineering Case
histories, http://casehistories.geoengineer.org, Vol.3, Issue 1, p.36-66. doi: 10.4417/IJGCH-03-01-04
International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 36

http://casehistories.geoengineer.org
This paper first describes the test piling in detail including objectives, site conditions, preliminary pile design
and results of the SLTs. Then, wave matching analysis (WMA) of the DLTs at initial driving and re-striking are
conducted using a numerical approach developed by the authors, in order to derive the corresponding static loaddisplacement relations and soil resistance distributions. The derived load-displacement relations clearly showed
so-called "set-up" phenomena. The derived load-displacement relations of the TSC1 and TSP1 were good
estimates for the results of the SLTs. Static load-displacement relations of the TSC2 and TSP2 were predicted
using the soil parameters identified from the WMA of the TSC1 and TSP1, respectively. The predicted results
were comparable to the measured results, indicating that DLT with WMA is a good alternative to SLT.
Figure 1. Location of the site (with Vietnam on the left).
LAND SIDE
Figure 2. Photo of the berth area prior to use.

SITE AND TEST DESCRIPTION

Site conditions
Locations of the boreholes, working piles and test piles, and geological sections at the four test piles
A total of the 30 borehole investigations were conducted in this area (Fig. 3) to obtain the profiles of the soil
layers and SPT N-values. Typically, very soft clay exists from the seabed to depths of 6 m to 20 m. Below this
top layer, a clayey sand of about 25 m thickness ranging from a loose state at the top to medium dense state at
the bottom is present. It is underlain by hard silt clay that could be regarded as a bearing stratum.
Unit: m
TEST PILE TSP2
LANDSIDE
SC1
45
BH28
BH19
G'
75
G
BH7
20
LEGEND:
TRES. 5
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
BOREHOLE, BH1 to BH30
30
TRESTLE 6
H'
BH20
H
BH8
30
26
TRESTLE 1
BH13
BH25
A'
75
36
B'
TRESTLE 2
BH14
SP1
45
SP2
I'
TSC2
D800
75
BH29
30
TRESTLE 7
BH21
7
I
BH9
BH26
C'
45
75
TEST PILE TSC1
SC2
J'
BH22
J
BH10
TSP2
D900
30
TRESTLE 3
BH15
3
C
B
TEST PILE TSC2
26
45
75
45
BH16
D'
75
D
BH4
SEASIDE
BH3
BH2
TSP1
D1000
20
10
BH1
TEST PILE TSP1
BH23
TRESTLE 8
30 K'
BH30
30
75
Batter pile (D800)
M'
BH24
M
BH12
K
BH27
BH11
30 E'
BH17
TRESTLE 4
75
TSC1
D700
45
BH6
BH18
F'
10
6 x 6 = 36
BH5
TRESTLE 9
6 x 6 = 36
Figure 3. Locations of the boreholes, test piles and working piles.

Locations of the boreholes are shown in Fig. 3, together with the locations of the test piles and the working piles.
Of the four test piles, only the TSP1 and TSP2 were re-used as working piles. The geological sections of the four
test piles are shown in Fig. 4 for the TSP1 and TSC1 and in Fig. 5 for the TSC2 and TSP2. Note that the high
water level (HWL), mean water level (MWL) and low water level (LWL) using the Vietnamese national
standard elevation system are +3.97 m, +2.67 m and +0.58 m, respectively. The elevation of the working floor of
the berth structure is +5.50 m.
Figure 4. Geological sections at locations of the test piles: (a) TSP1. (b) TSC1.

Figure 5. Geological sections at locations of the test piles: (a) TSC2. (b) TSP2.
Estimation of the shear modulus of the ground
The load-displacement relationship of a pile is strongly influenced by the shear moduli of the surrounding
ground as well as the distribution of shaft resistance and tip resistance. The shear moduli of the ground needed to
be assumed in the WMA of the DLTs of the TSC1 and TSP1. Hence, it was necessary to approximately estimate
the shear moduli of the ground at the locations of the test piles.

The soil shear modulus, G0, at small strain level was estimated using the following empirical equation proposed
by Imai (1977), for all soil types.
G0 98 120 N 0.737 (kPa)
(1)
The distribution of the SPT N-value with depth at the location of each test pile was interpolated from the SPT Nvalues of the two nearest boreholes, e.g., the SPT N-values at the location of the TSP1 was estimated from those
of the two boreholes BH1 and BH13 (see Fig. 4a).
Figure 6 shows the estimated distributions of G0 with depth at each location of the test piles. These values were
used as first-order estimates of the shear moduli in the wave matching analysis of the DLTs.
Estimated shear modulus, G0 (MPa)
Distance from seabed, z (m)
0.0
50
100
TSP1
5.0
10.0
15.0
150
200
250
at TSC1
at TSC2
at TSP1
at TSP2
20.0
25.0
TSC1
TSP2
30.0
35.0
40.0
TSC2
45.0
Figure 6. Estimated shear modulus at the four test piles.
Preliminary pile design
Design of the working piles
The berth structure was subjected to various types of loads including vertical loads (self-weight, live load caused
by goods) and horizontal loads (earthquake, wind, wave and collision of a ship to the berth structure). Different
combinations of loads on the berth structure were considered in preliminary design stage. The maximum
compressive force ranged from 1800 kN to 4002 kN, depending on the pile location. Potentially high tensile
forces are found at the sea-side row (axis A) and at the middle row (axis B) of the working piles. Hence, the steel
piles were used for axes A and B while the concrete piles (spun piles) were used for the remaining locations. Due
to the wide range of the pile head force, it was decided to use four pile types which can support the above forces.
The location of each pile type is shown in Fig. 3.
The design working vertical load of each pile type is listed in Table 1. Under these loads, the allowable
settlements of the piles without taking into account the pile elastic shortening is 20 mm.
According to TCVN 205-1998, the selection of the factor of safety, FS, for determining the required capacity
depends on the method to estimate the ultimate capacity, Qu, e.g., FS = 2.5 to 3.0 is employed if Qu is calculated
from the empirical equations, FS = 3.0 to 6.0 is employed if Qu is estimated from the driving formulas, and FS =
2 can be employed if Qu is obtained from SLT. In this study, the required capacity was first estimated from the
empirical equation to select the embedment pile length, and then the required capacity was confirmed through
the static load test. The required capacities of the four test piles in accordance with SLT (FS = 2) and without
SLT (FS = 3) are listed in Table 2.

Table 1. Working load and corresponding allowable settlement.

Working
Allowable
Diameter
Pile
vertical load
settlement
type
D (mm)
Pa (kN)
Sa (mm)
Table 2. Required capacity.

Pile
type
Required capacity (kN)

with SLT
w/o SLT
SC1 (SCP)
700
1800
20
SC1
3600
5400
SC2 (SCP)
800
2585
20
SC2
5170
7755
SP1 (SPP)
1000
4002
20
SP1
8004
12006
20
SP2
7716
11574
SP2 (SPP)
900
3858
SPP: Steel Pipe Pile, SCP: Spun Concrete Pile
Design of the test piles
To adapt the requirement of the capacity, the ultimate capacity, Qu, of the test piles was estimated using the
following equation:
Qu qmax Ap max,i As,i
(3)
in which, qmax is the maximum base resistance, max, i is the maximum shaft resistance of soil layer i, Ap is the pile
tip area with an assumption that perfect plugging occurs at the pile tip, and As, i is the circumferential area of the
pile along soil layer i. According to Vietnamese pile design standard code, TCVN 205-1998, the strength
parameters, max and qmax, can be estimated from SPT N-value using the following empirical equations:
max = 2N (kPa) for sand (limit value = 100 kPa)

max = cu or 10N (kPa) for clay (limit value = 150 kPa)
(4)
(5)
(6)
qmax = 300Np (kPa) for both sand and clay soils (Np is limited to 50)
where N is SPT N-value of the soil surrounding the pile and Np is the average SPT N-value of the soil at the pile
tip within a range of 4D above and 1D below the pile tip.
Estimated ultimate capacity, Qu (kN)
0
6000
9000 12000 15000
Ultimate capacity
Pile tip level for the required
capacity with FS = 3
Selected pile tip level
5.0
10.0
15.0
34.6 m
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0 (z = 34.0 m)
Top of the
hard silty clay
40.0
45.0
0.0
seabed
5.0
10.0
TSC1
(a)
45.0
9000 12000 15000
10.0
15.0
40.4 m
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Top of the
hard silty clay
(z = 39.8 m)
TSC2 (b)
45.0
6000
9000 12000 15000
seabed
Ultimate capacity
34.0 m
Top of the hard

silty clay (z = 32.5 m)
TSP1
(c)
seabed
Ultimate capacity
5.0
3000
25.0
40.0
6000
20.0
35.0
3000
15.0
30.0
0.0
3000
0.0
0.0

0
5.0
10.0
3000
6000
9000 12000 15000
seabed
Ultimate capacity
15.0
37.4 m
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Top of the
hard silty clay
(z = 34.5 m)
TSP2
(d)
Figure 7. Estimated ultimate capacity with depth and selection of the pile tip level for:
(a) TSC1. (b) TSC2. (c) TSP1. (d) TSP2.

Distributions with depth of the ultimate capacity of the test piles are shown in Figs. 7a, 7b, 7c and 7d for the
TSC1, TSC2, TSP2 and TSP1, respectively. The required pile tip levels are shown by the red circles in the
figures. In case of the TSC1, the required pile tip level does not reach the hard silt clay. However, it was decided
to penetrate the pile tip of the TSC1 into the hard silt clay, since TCVN 205-1998 prescribes that the pile tip
shall be penetrated at least 0.5 m into a hard bearing stratum. The selected embedment lengths at this preliminary
design stage of the test piles were 34.6 m, 40.4 m, 34.0 m and 37.4 m for the TSC1, TSC2, TSP1 and TSP2,
respectively. The distance from the seabed to the top level of the test piles (i.e., +6.5 m, 1 m above the working
floor of the berth structure) are 15.7 m for the TSC1, 7.5 m for the TSC2, 17.1 m for the TSP1 and 12.5 m for the
TSP2. Hence, the minimum length of the TSC1, TSC2, TSP1 and TSP2 are 50.3 m, 47.9 m, 51.1 m and 49.9 m,
respectively, as shown in Table 3 along with the other pile specifications.
Table 3. Specification of test piles.
Item
Diameter, D (mm)
Wall thickness, tw (mm)
Cross-sectional area, A (mm2)
Young's modulus, E (kPa)
Pile density, (ton/m3)
Wave speed, c (m/s)
Minimum pile length, Lmin (m)
Allowable compressive stress, com (MPa)
Allowable tensile stress, ten (MPa)
Allowable compressive force, Fcom (kN)
Allowable tensile force, Ften (kN)
TSC1
700
100
188495
4.3 107
2.5
4148
50.3
64.16
7.85
12090
1480
TSC2
800
110
238447
4.3 107
2.5
4148
47.9
64.16
7.85
15299
1872
TSP1
1000
12
37247
2.0 108
7.88
5038
51.1
360
360
13409
13409
TSP2
900
12
33477
2.0 108
7.88
5038
49.9
360
360
12051
12051
Test pile driving

In order to drive a pile to the designed depth without any damage to the pile, selecting a pile driving system with
adequate energy is very important. This selection involves several factors such as: the size and type of the pile,
the properties and topography of the ground, the location of the project (whether driving on land or in water) and
the pile driving cost. In order to have an economical and efficient solution when driving a very long pile (L ~ 50
m) with a large diameter (D = 700 to 1000 mm) through a sandy soil of medium density in offshore condition, a
diesel hammer was selected for this project. The required energy of the hammer and the driving work of the test
piles are presented below.
Selecting the pile driving hammer
According to TCVN 286-2003, the minimum required energy, Eh (Nm), of each blow is estimated based on the
following empirical equation:
Eh 1.75 a Pa
(7)
in which a = 25 Nm/kN is empirical constant, Pa (kN) is the design working load of the pile.
In case of a single-acting diesel hammer, the hammer mass, Mh (kg), must be consistent with the following
conditions:
Mh Mp
5Eh
g
(8)
where Mp (kg) is the mass of the pile including masses of the helmet and cushions, and g is the gravity
acceleration (= 9.81 m/s2). It should be noted here that units on the left and right side of Equation 8 are not
consistent. Equation 8 is an empirical equation specified in TCVN 286-2003.
Table 4 lists the minimum driving energy and the maximum hammer mass required for the four test piles. From
these requirements, a diesel hammer, Delmag D100-13, was selected for the driving work of the test piles. The
main specifications of the hammer indicated in Table 5 satisfy the requirements of driving of all the test piles.
Selection of the pile driving hammer for the working piles needed to be reconsidered, if the driving stresses

predicted by the wave propagation analysis presented in a later part in this paper exceeded the allowable values
of the axial stresses or axial forces of the test piles (see Table 3).
Table 4. Estimation of required energy for pile driving hammer and condition for hammer mass.
Item
TSC1
TSC2
TSP1
TSP2
Design working load, Pa (kN)
1800
2585
4002
3858
Mass of pile, Mp(ton) including helmet and cushions
26.5
32.1
18.2
15.5
Minimum required energy, Eh (kNm)
78.8
113.0
175.1
168.8
Maximum mass of hammer, Mh (ton)
13.6
25.5
71.0
70.5
Table 5. Specification of the pile driving hammer.
Item
Specification
Pile driving hammer
Delmag, D100-13
Hammer mass, Mh (kg)
10000
Drop height of hammer, H (m)
2.8
Energy per blow, Eh (Nm)
213860 to 333540
Number of blows per minute
36 to 45
Suitable for driving pile with mass, Mp, up to (ton)
40
Requirements for driving the test piles
Based on the minimum required pile length, L of about 50 m, the maximum manufactured pile segment length,
Lseg (not longer than 30 m) as well as transportation limitations, the TSC1 and TSC2 consisted of two segments
in which the lower segment is 30 m and the upper segment is 26 m (Fig. 8a). The reason for the longer lower
segment is to ensure that the pile tip is driven though the soft clay and is laid in the clayey sand at the end of the
driving work of the lower segment. Meanwhile, the test steel pipe piles, TSP1 and TSP2, consisted of three
segments with 20 m length for each. Like the above purpose, Seg. 1 and Seg. 2 of the TSP piles were spliced on
the barge to form the lower segment of 40 m length (Fig. 8b). The lower and upper segments of all the test piles
were welded at the site.
(a)
(b)
Figure 8. Pile combination from its segments. (a) TSC1 and TSC2. (b) TSP1 and TSP2.
In order to possibly reach the required capacity, the piles have to be driven to the designed depths with an
appropriate penetration per blow. According to TCVN 286-2003, when driving a pile using a diesel hammer, the
average settlement per blow, S, obtained from the last 10 blows has to be smaller than the required value, Sd,
calculated from Eq. (9a). The values of Sd for the four test piles are listed in Table 6.
Sd
2ef M h gHLp
ef M h gH
0.5
Qd
EA
(9a)
in which: ef is the hammer fall efficiency, ef = 0.8 for a single-acting diesel hammer.
Qd is the total dynamic pile resistance which is usually assumed to be equal to the design working load, Pa, with
the safety factor of more than 3 for the purpose of driving control. FS = 4.5 was chosen for this particular case
to ensure pile driving termination.
Lp is the pile length, Lp = 56 m for SC piles, Lp = 60 m for SP piles.
E is the Youngs modulus of the pile material.
A is the net cross-sectional area of the pile calculated from the outer diameter.
H is the falling height of the hammer mass, H = 2.5 m for SC piles, H = 2.8 m for SP piles.

It is noted that Eq. (9a) can also be used for estimating Qd during driving. Eq. (9a) is rewritten as:
ef M h gH
Qd
Sd 0.5
2ef M h gHLp
EA
Qd is calculated using the measured value of Sd during driving by means of Eq. (9b).
Table 6. The maximum settlement per blow of the four test piles.
Item
TSC1
TSC2
TSP1
Maximum penetration per blow, Sd (mm)
4.8
2.0
4.7
(9b)
TSP2
4.5
The sequence of the driving work of the test piles is as follows:

1. The lower segment is first driven into the ground to the given depth.
2. The welding work of upper and lower segments shall be carried out immediately at the site right after the
completion of the driving work of the lower segment.
3. Further driving is conducted as soon as the welding work is completed and approved.
4. The pile is driven to the designed depth with the penetration per blow being smaller than the required value.
Note that, settlement per blow, S, and rebound, R, was measured at the end of driving manually using "paper and
pencil method".
Results of driving work of the four test piles
All the test piles were driven into the bearing stratum of the hard silt clay with final embedment lengths as
follows: 34.6 m for TSC1, 41.2 m for the TSC2, 34.9 m for the TSP1 and 37.4 m for the TSP2. The embedment
pile length of the TSC1 and the TSP2 were similar to those estimated from the empirical equation, while the
penetration length of the TSC2 and the TSP1 were 0.8 m and 0.9 m greater than the expected values,
respectively. The average settlement per blow calculated from the last 10 blows of the four test piles, TSC1,
TSC2, TSP1 and TSP2, were 2.3 mm, 1.3 mm, 0.6 mm and 1.6 mm, respectively. All these values satisfied the
requirements indicated in Table 5. The final embedment pile length of the working piles was decided after
analysing the results of the static and dynamic load tests of the test piles.
To prepare for the dynamic load test, except for the TSP1, the other three test piles were cut to the cut-off level,
as illustrated in Fig. 9.
Figure 9. Illustration of the four test piles before and after cutting the pile to the cut-off level.
(a) TSC1. (b) TSC2. (c) TSP1. (d) TSP2.
Test procedure
Table 7 shows the testing schedule for each test pile including dynamic load test at the end of the driving work
(EOD), dynamic load test at the beginning of re-striking (BOR) after rest period (7 days for the TSC1, 34 days

for TSP1), and static load test after further rest period (10 days for TSC1 and 14 days for TSP1). Static load tests
only were carried out for TSC2 and TSP2 after rest periods of 17 days and 27 days, respectively, from the day of
driving.
Test date
End of driving, EOD
Rest period before re-striking
Beginning of re-striking, BOR
Rest period before static load test
Static load test, SLT
Table 7. Schedule for the test piles.

TSC1
TSC2
21-Feb-2011
16-Mar-2011
7 days
28-Feb-2011
17 days
10 days
10-Mar-2011
2-Apr-2011
TSP1
26-May-2011
34 days
26-Jun-2011
14 days
13-Jul-2011
TSP2
7-May-2011
27 days
3-Jun-2011
Dynamic load tests of TSC1 and TSP1

Dynamic load tests were carried out at the end of driving (EOD) and at the beginning of re-striking (BOR) to
investigate the set-up phenomenon, to check the driveability of the driving system and to identify the soil
parameters. In order to measure the dynamic signals, two strain gauges and two accelerometers were attached to
the pile at a distance of 2.7 m for the TSC1 and 3.5 m for the TSP1 from the pile top. At the dynamic
measurement location, each pair of strain gauges and accelerometers were attached to the pile at symmetrical
positions to the pile centre. The same driving hammer in the stage of driving the test piles was used. Illustration
of the driving work in DLT is shown in Fig. 10. Monitoring devices were placed at a distance of about 7 to 10 m
from the test pile to minimise the possible influence of the pile response on the measured signals.
Figure 10. Illustration of the test pile driving by diesel hammer.

Dynamic load tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM-D4945-00 for PDA pile testing using the high
strain method. A PDA software suite was used to measure the dynamic signals including strains and
accelerations. Using this software, velocity and force signals are automatically obtained from the measured
values. The settlement per blow of the pile head was also manually measured at the end of driving.
Static load tests of the four test piles
The static load test was carried out after a given rest period from the BOR test in order to obtain the static loaddisplacement relation. The maximum load, Pmax, for each test is listed in Table 8.
Table 8. The maximum test load.
Item
TSC1
TSC2
Design working load, Pa (kN)
1800
2585
Maximum test load, Pmax = 2 Pa (kN)
3600
5170
TSP1
4002
8004
TSP2
3858
7716
Static load tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM-D1143-81 for piles under static axial compressive
load. The tests were carried out in offshore condition where the conventional static load test method using steel
or concrete blocks as reaction force is very complicated. Hence, the reaction force for these tests was created by
8 anchor steel pipe piles with diameter of 700 mm and 4 pairs of reaction beams, I No. 900, as shown in Fig. 11.

Figure 11. Illustration of the SLT. (a) Layout of the test piles and reaction system. (b) Cross-sectional view of the
SLT.

Regardless of the self-weight of the reaction system, reaction anchor piles were designed to have a tension
resistance 3 times Pmax. As the 8 anchor piles were used for the reaction system, each anchor steel pile for SLT of
the TSC1, TSC2, TSP1 and TSP2 had to have the uplift capacity of 1350, 1939, 3002 and 2894 kN, respectively.
The uplift capacity with depth of the anchor piles at the locations of the test piles calculated from Eq. (3) with an
assumption of qmax = 0, is shown in Fig. 12. The pile tip level for the required uplift capacity is indicated by dot
symbol in the figure. The selected pile tip level indicated by triangle symbol corresponding to the embedment
length of the anchor piles in SLT of the TSC1, TSC2, TSP1 and TSP2 were 28, 39, 35 and 40 m, respectively.
As seen from Fig. 12, the uplift capacities of the anchor piles at the selected pile tip levels are greater than the
required capacity. The nearest centre-to-centre distance, Lc, from the anchor piles to the test pile was 3.2 m,
corresponding to the ratio Lc/D ranging from 3.2 to 4.6. This distance is large enough to minimise the influence
of the anchor pile on the test pile.
Uplift capacity (kN)
0.0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Capacity of anchor pile with
the soil condistion:
at TSC1
at TSC2
at TSP1
at TSP2
Pile tip level for the
required uplift capacity
Selected pile tip level
10.0
20.0
3002 kN (TSP1)
30.0
1350 kN
(TSC1)
2894 kN (TSP2)
40.0
1939 kN (TSC2)
Figure 12. Uplift capacity of the anchor piles with the soil conditions at the TSC1, TSC2, TSP1 and TSP2.
In the static load test, in order to measure the applied force and the corresponding pile head settlement, the
testing system consisted of a hydraulic jack with a capacity of 9 MN and 4 dial gauges of 100 mm in range. The
jack was placed on the pile top and under the main beam I No. 1580 as shown in Fig. 11b. The dial gauges were
placed firmly on two stable reference beams supported by two additional anchor piles to minimise the influences
of soil movement and deformation of the equipment on the measurements.
Load percentage of Pa
The loading and unloading processes indicated in Fig. 13 were employed in the SLT and include two cycles with
21 steps as follows:
13
200
12
14
11
150
15
10
4
100
3
18
19
5
6
50
16
17
20
21
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Cycle 2
Cycle 1
Time, t (h)
Figure 13. Loading process in SLTs.

1. First cycle (8 steps, from step 1 to step 8): Loading to the design working load, Pa, then unloading to zero.
Increment of the applied load at each loading step was set at 25% of the design working load. Load
maintaining time of each step was 1 hour. Each unloading step was the same as that in the loading step
and the load maintaining time of each step was 10 minutes.
2. Second cycle (13 steps, from step 9 to step 21): After 1 hour of unloading to zero in the 1st cycle,
reloading to the design working load and maintaining the load for 6 hours at step 9. Further load was
applied until the maximum load, Pmax. At the maximum load, the load maintaining time was also 6 hours
at step 13, and thereafter unloading procedure similat to the 1st cycle was used to unload to zero.
For measuring the pile head displacement, after every 15 minutes in loading process and 10 minutes in unloading,
the settlement of the pile was recorded.
The pile is considered to reach the failure (ultimate) state if one of the followings occurs:
1. Under the working load, the pile displacement without taking into account the pile compression exceeds
20 mm.
2. When unloading the working load to zero, the residual settlement exceeds the limit value, Sar = 10 mm.
3. Under the maximum load, the total displacement of the pile head including the pile compression
exceeds 10% of the pile diameter.
4. During the test, the pile is found to be away from its original position or to be damaged.
The first criterion can be expressed by means of the allowable pile head displacement including the pile
compression under the working load. In accordance with TCVN 269-2002, the elastic pile compression, L, of a
friction pile with a length, L, subjected to a vertical pile head load, P, can be calculated using the following
equation:
2 PL
3 EA
(10)
in which E and A are the Youngs modulus and cross-sectional of the pile, respectively.
The elastic shortening of the pile and the corresponding allowable pile head displacements under the working
load, and the allowable pile head displacement under the maximum test load are listed in Table 9.
Table 9. Elastic shortening of the pile and the allowable pile head displacements.
Item
Pile compression, L(mm) at working load Pa
Allowable pile head settlement Sa(mm) with taking into
account the elastic shortening of the pile subjected to the
working load Pa
Allowable pile head settlement Smax(mm) with taking
into account the elastic shortening of the pile subjected to
the maximum test load Pmax
TSC1
8.4
TSC2
9.3
TSP1
18.6
TSP2
18.2
28.4
29.3
38.6
38.2
70.0
80.0
100.0
90.0
Results of the static load test will be presented later along with the results of WMA.
WAVE MATCHING ANALYSIS AND TEST RESULTS
Wave matching procedure
Numerical approach
The numerical approach for the analyses of the dynamic load tests is briefly presented. Fig. 14a shows the
numerical model used. In this model, the pile and the soil plug are modelled as a series of massless linear springs
with discrete masses at nodes. Soil surrounding the pile and beneath the pile tip are taken into account using the
rational soil models proposed by Randolph and Deeks (1992).

(b)
(c)
(a)
Figure 14. Numerical modelling. (a) Pile soil system. (b) Shaft soil resistance model.
(c) Base soil resistance model.
The soil resistance parameters of the rational soil models shown in Figs. 14b and 14c are approximately related
to the soil properties and the pile configurations as follows:
spring stiffness of the outer shaft resistance: ks
radiation damping of the outer shaft resistance:
2.75 G
2 ro
(11)
cr sG
(12)
spring stiffness of the base resistance of the annular pile base: kb-p
spring stiffness of the base resistance of the soil plug: kb-sp
added soil mass at the soil plug base:
mbw-p 16(ro ri )
mbw-sp 16 ri
4G
(ro ri )(1 v)
4G
ri (1 v)
damping of the base resistance of the annular pile and the soil plug:
added soil mass at the annular pile base:
cb1 cb2
(14)
3.2
G s
(1 v)
0.1 v 4
s (per unit area)
(1 v)
0.1 v 4
s
(1 v)
(13)
(per unit area)
(15)
(16)
(17)
In the above equations, G, and s are the shear modulus, the Poisson's ratio and the density of the soil, and ro
and ri are the outer and inner radii of the pile.

Writing the force equilibrium equation at all the nodes, the motion of the pile and soil plug can be expressed by
the well-known matrix form as follows:
K w C w M w F
(18)
in which [K], [C] and [M] are the global stiffness, damping and mass matrices, respectively. w , w , w and
F are the displacement, velocity, acceleration and the applied force vectors, respectively.
The Newmarks method (1959) in which = 1/6 is used to solve the incremental form of the above equation.
Note that [K] and [C] matrices are updated in each calculation step while [M] matrix remains unchanged. If the
values of [C] and [M] are set to be zero, the above approach can be applied to the static problem.
The details and numerical validation of the proposed method can be found in Phan et al. (2012).
Modelling of the test ground and the pile
Figures 15 and 16 show the profiles of SPT N-values, the soil stratification, location of the pile and the
distributions with depth of the shear moduli, G0, and shear resistances, max, for the TSC1 and TSP1, respectively.
Note that the values of G0 and max are the first assumption of the soil properties for both the outer and inner soils
in the wave matching analysis. Although the 3-layer ground at both the test piles was divided into 5 sub-layers in
the analysis, the test pile TSC1 with the length of 54 m was divided into 54 elements and the test pile SP1 with
the length of 60 m was divided into 60 elements. Because the top level of the soil plug was not measured during
driving, the soil plug height was assumed to be 70 % to 80 % of the embedment pile length. This assumption is
reasonable based on research of Paik et al. (2003) and Paikowsky et al. (1989). Hereafter, the distance from the
seabed to the top of the soil plug was assumed to be 9 m for the TSC1 and 7 m for the TSP1. The influence of
the soil plug height on the wave matching analysis results is discussed later.
SPT N-value TSC1

Soil profiles
0
Depth from G.L. (m)
Soft
clay
20
40
60
Interpolated
Modelling
Shear modulus,
G0, MPa
0
100
200
Shear resistance,
, kPa
max
0
50
100 150
0
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
25
25
25
30
30
30
30
35
35
35
35
40
40
40
45
45
45
20
25
40
45
Clayed
sand
Hard silty
clay
Figure 15. Modelling of the test ground at the test pile TSC1.

SPT N-value TSP1

Soil profiles
0
5
Soft
clay
20
40
60
Interpolated
Modelling
0
5
10
10
10
15
15
15
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
30
30
30
30
35
35
35
35
Hard silty
clay
40
40
40
40
45
45
45
45
10
Depth from G.L. (m)
Shear resistance,
, kPa
max
0
50
100 150
0
Shear modulus,
G0, MPa
0
100
200
15
20
Clayed
sand
Figure 16. Modelling of the test ground at the test pile TSP1.
The impact head force, F(0,t), is calculated from the measured downward travelling force, Fd ( Lm , t ) , and the
upward travelling force, Fu ( Lm , t ) , based on the one-dimensional stress-wave theory, as follows:
F (0, t ) Fd ( Lm , t Lm / c) Fu ( Lm , t Lm / c)
(19)
in which Fd ( Lm , t Lm / c) and Fu ( Lm , t Lm / c) are calculated from the measured force, Fmeas, and the measured
velocity, vmeas, as the following equations:
Fd ( Lm , t Lm / c)
1
E
Fmeas ( Lm , t Lm / c) vmeas ( Lm , t Lm / c)
2
c
(20)
Fu ( Lm , t Lm / c)
1
E
Fmeas ( Lm , t Lm / c) vmeas ( Lm , t Lm / c)
2
c
(21)
6000
6000
Impact force at pile head
used in WMA
Measured force
at strain gauge
4000
3000
2000
(a)
1000
Calculated force at pile head

used in WMA
Measured force
at strain gauge
5000
Force, F (kN)
Force, F (kN)
5000
4000
3000
2000
(b)
1000
0
20
40
60
Time, t (ms)
80
100
20
40
60
80
100
Time, t (ms)
Figure 17. Calculated impact forces at the pile head, together with measured forces
of the TSC1 at (a) EOD. (b) BOR.

10000
used in WMA
Measured force
at strain gauge
Force, F (kN)
8000
6000
4000
2000
(a)
Force, F (kN)
10000
used in WMA
Measured force
at strain gauge
8000
6000
4000
(b)
2000
0
20
40
60
Time, t (ms)
80
100
20
40
60
80
100
Time, t (ms)
Figure 18. Calculated impact forces at the pile head, together with measured forces
of the TSP1 at (a) EOD. (b) BOR.
The calculated impact forces at the pile head in the EOD and BOR tests are shown in Figs. 17a and 17b for
TSC1 and in Figs. 18a and 18b for TSP1. The measured forces at the strain gauge level are also shown in the
figures for comparison.
Results of wave matching analyses
Results of the TSC1
Under the impact force caused by a hammer mass of 10 ton with a falling height of 2.5 m, the measured
settlement per blow of the pile head were 2.3 mm in the EOD test and 1.5 mm in the BOR test. These values
along with pile axial force, downward and upward traveling forces, velocities and displacements obtained from
the measured dynamic signals at the strain gauge level were used as targets in the wave matching analysis
(WMA). In the WMAs, the distributions of the shear modulus of the soil, the outer shaft resistance, the inner
shaft resistance, the pile tip resistance and the soil plug base resistance were assumed, because the other soil
resistance parameters are estimated from the assumed values of the shear modulus and the pile dimensions (refer
to Eqs. (11) through (17)). As for the density, s, and the Poisson's ratio, , of the soils, it was assumed that s =
17 ton/m3 and = 0.3.
As mentioned earlier, the distance from the seabed to the top of the soil plug was assumed to be 9 m for the
TSC1. In the first WMA with the soil properties shown in Fig. 15, good matching was not obtained. Then, the
soil properties were changed until good matching between the calculated and the measured responses was
observed. The results of the final WMA for both the EOD and BOR tests are shown in Figs. 19 and 20,
respectively.
Note that, the calculated downward and upward travelling forces shown in Figs. 19b and 20b were calculated
from the calculated axial force, F, and the calculated velocity, v, at the strain gauge level using Eqs. (13) and
(14), respectively.

6000
6000
Calculated force
Measured force
4000
3000
2000
(a)
1000
5000
Axial force, F (kN)
Axial force, F (kN)
5000
0
-1000
Calculated force
Measured force
4000
3000
2000
(a)
1000
0
-1000
20
40
60
80
100
20
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
Force, Fd and Fu (kN)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
Calculated downforce
Measured downforce
Calculated upforce
Measured upforce
(b)
20
40
60
80
80
100
(b)
100
20
40
60
80
100
Time, t (ms)
4.0
4.0
Calculated velo.
Measured velo.
3.0
2.0
Velocity, v (m/s)
Velocity, v (m/s)
60
Measured downforce
Calculated upforce
Measured upforce
Time, t (ms)
1.0
0.0
(c)
-1.0
-2.0
Calculated velo.
Measured velo.
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
(c)
-1.0
-2.0
20
40
60
80
100
20
40.0
Calculated disp.
Measured disp.
30.0
40
60
80
100
Time, t (ms)
20.0
10.0
0.0
(d)
-10.0
Displacement, w (mm)
Time, t (ms)
40
Time, t (ms)
Time, t (ms)
40.0
Calculated disp.
Measured disp.
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
(d)
-10.0
0
20
40
60
80
Time, t (ms)
100
20
40
60
80
100
Time, t (ms)
(a) Force. (b) Downward and upward travelling forces. (c) Velocity. (d) Displacement.
Figure 19. Results of the final wave matching
analysis of EOD test of the TSC1.

analysis of BOR test of the TSC1.

As seen from the figures, the analysed results of the final WMA are comparable with the measured values for
both the EOD and BOR tests. The return travelling time of stress wave in the pile is about 26.0 ms (2L/c =
0.0260 s). The rise time of the axial forces was 17.5 ms in the EOD test and 14.5 ms in the BOR test. Therefore,
the peak of the force was reflected at the pile tip and returned to the strain gauge level at t = 43.5 ms (26 + 17.5
ms) in the EOD test and at t = 40.5 ms (26 + 14.5 ms) in the BOR test. From Fig. 20a, the axial force at the
instant of 40.5 ms obtained in BOR test is substantially greater than that in the EOD test (see axial force at t =
43.5 ms in Fig. 19a), indicating that higher soil resistance was mobilised in the BOR test than in the EOD test
due to the set-up phenomenon during the rest period between the EOD and BOR tests. Of course, the influence
of the soil resistance can be found more clearly when we compare the calculated and measured upward travelling
forces as shown in Figs. 19b and 20b. Note that the final calculated pile head displacement in BOR test shown in
Fig. 20d was 1.28 mm which was in good agreement with the measured value of 1.5 mm.
Outer shear moduli

G (MPa)
0
100 200 300
0
st
1 assump.
5 WMA
of EOD
of BOR
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
35
40
45
Pile tip
(a)
Outer shear resist.

(kPa)
max
0 50 100 150 200
st
Inner shear moduli

G (MPa)
0
100 200 300
1 assump.
5
35
40
45
WMA
of EOD
of BOR
Pile tip
(b)
Inner shear resist.

(kPa)
max
0 50 100 150 200
st
st
Distance from the seabed, z (m)
The soil properties identified from the final WMA are shown in Fig. 21 for the soil surrounding the pile shaft and
in Table 10 for the soil beneath the pile tip and the soil plug base. The soil properties in the first assumption are
also indicated for comparison.
1 assump.
WMA
1 assump.
WMA
10
of EOD
of BOR
10
of EOD
of BOR
15
Top of SP
15
Top of SP
20
20
25
25
30
30
35
40
45
35
Pile tip
(c)
Pile tip
40
(d)
45
Figure 21. Soil properties obtained from the final WMA of the TSC1 in the EOD and BOR tests.
Table 10. The soil parameters at the pile tip and soil plug base obtained from the final WMA.
1st assumption
Item
Unit
EOD test
BOR test
Shear modulus at the pile tip, Gb
MPa
1700
7000
210
Shear modulus at the soil plug base, Gsp
MPa
1000
2000
210
End bearing resistance at the pile tip, qb,max
kPa
30700
33500
15000
End bearing resistance at the soil plug base, qsp,max
kPa
1000
2000
15000
Figure 21 shows that the values of shear modulus, G, and the shear resistance, max, of the soil layers identified
from the final WMA of the EOD test are smaller than those of the BOR test, indicating again that the set-up
phenomenon occurred after the rest period. As seen from the figures, the identified values of G for both tests are
smaller than the first assumptions for the soils. The outer shear resistance, however, are smaller than the firstly
assumed values for the weak soils (the top soil layer of soft clay and the upper part of the second soil layer of
clayey sand with loose packing state). For the harder soils (the lower part of the second soil layer of clayey sand
with medium packing state and the third soil layer of hard silt clay), the outer shear resistance identified from the
final WMA of the EOD test are comparable with the first assumptions of max, but those identified from the final
WMA of the BOR test are greater than the firstly assumed values. Comparison of the shear modulus between the
identified and the firstly assumed values suggests that reduction factor of 0.1 for soft soils, 0.15 to 0.20 for
medium soils and 0.25 to 0.40 for hard soils can be used to estimate the shear moduli of soils at this particular
site.

Consideration of the inner soil parameters ( max and G) was indispensable to get good matching results. The
identified inner soil parameters obtained from the final WMA are smaller than both the first assumption and the
values of the outer soils. The smaller soil parameter values of the soil plug could be attributed to the soil
disturbance when driving the pile in the saturated condition. Furthermore, it could be supposed that the excesspore water pressure generated in the soil plug during driving was not easy to dissipate after the short rest period.
As for the identified shear moduli and the end bearing resistances of the soil at the pile tip and the soil plug base
indicated in Table 10, the values obtained from the final WMA of the EOD test are also smaller than those from
the BOR test. For both tests, all the identified values are substantially greater than the firstly assumed values.
One reason is that the first assumption of soil parameters were estimated based on the limit of SPT N-values of
the soil at the pile tip, Np = 50, which was smaller than the actual value at this site. Another reason might be that
the empirical equations are only a crude approach to estimate G and qmax for the hard soil beneath the pile tip.
Note that the identified end bearing resistance of the soil beneath the soil plug base was substantially smaller
than that of the soil below the pile tip. Based on the analysis results, the mobilised inner soil resistances were
very small during driving. Hence, the mobilised end-bearing resistance of the soil beneath the soil plug base was
limited to a small value.
Pile head disp., wh (mm)
In order to investigate the influence of the assumed soil plug height on the analysed results, the top of soil plug
from the seabed level was varied from 0 to 13 m by examining three more cases (Cases 1 to 3) in which Cases 1
and 2 have higher heights of soil plug while Case 3 has a shorter height of soil plug compared to the previously
analysed case (the reference case) with the distance from the seabed to the top of the soil plug of 9 m. The
identified soil parameters obtained from the final WMA of the BOR test were used in these analyses. Note that,
the inner soil parameters at the top of the soil plug (z = 9 m) identified from the final WMA of the BOR test were
used for the shallower depths from z = 0 to 9 m in Case 1 and Case 2. Results of the pile head displacements
obtained from the three additional analyses are compared with that in the final WMA of the BOR test in Fig. 22.
40.0
Level of the top of the SP
z = 0 m (Case 1)
z = 5 m (Case 2)
z = 9 m (Ref. Case)
z = 13 m (Case 3)
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
-10.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Time, t (ms)
Figure 22. Calculated pile head displacement with different heights of the soil plug.
As seen from the figure, although the soil plug height changed significantly, the calculated result varied slightly,
indicating that the influence of the soil plug height in these particular analyses was negligible. One of the reasons
could be that the soil near the top of the soil plug was very weak with SPT N-values ranging from 0 to 4 and the
identified values of max was only 4 kPa for depths from 0 to 13.5 m. Therefore, an assumption of the top of the
soil plug height in this study could be acceptable. All of the identified soil parameters were then used to derive
the static load displacement curves, as presented later.
Selection of an appropriate pile driving hammer in pile driving is obligatory to ensure that pile is not damaged
during driving. In order to evaluate the appropriateness of the selected pile driving hammer, the distributions
with depth of the maximum compressive and tensile stresses calculated from the final WMA of the EOD and
BOR tests are compared with the allowable values in Fig. 23. It can be seen from the figure that the maximum
compressive stress occurred at about 4 m above the pile tip while the tensile stress reached the maximum value
at the middle of the embedment pile length. All the calculated stresses in the pile generated during driving were
smaller than the allowable stresses, indicating that the selected pile hammer was suitable for the TSC1. Similar
evaluation of the suitability to the pile driving hammer is subsequently presented for TSP1.

Axial stress in pile,
-10
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
10
20
30
Max tens.
stress
at EOD
(MPa)
40
50
60
70
Max comp.
stress
at EOD
Seabed
Allowable
tens. stress
Max tens.
stress
at BOR
Top of the
hard silty clay
Allowable
comp. stress
Max comp.
stress
at BOR
40.0
Figure 23. Distribution with depth of the maximum tensile and compressive stresses in the pile during driving of
the TSC1.
Figure 24 shows the static load-displacement curves derived from the soil properties identified in the final WMA
of the EOD and BOR tests, compared to the static load test result in two cycles of loading process. It should be
noted that conducting the SLT just after EOD is not practical (impossible). However, it is interesting to compare
the calculated load-displacement curves at EOD and BOD with the measured curve in the SLT to discuss the setup phenomena of the driven pile.
As seen from the figure, the stiffness of the static response derived from the BOR test is higher than that derived
from the EOD test, indicating the set-up phenomenon discussed previously. The static response derived from
the final WMA of the BOR test is comparable with the SLT, compared to that obtained from the EOD test. As
indicated in Table 10, the EOD test was carried out 17 days before the SLT and the BOR test was conducted 10
days before the SLT. The three load-displacement curves in Fig. 24 clearly indicate the set-up phenomenon
during the period from the EOD test via the BOR test to the SLT. Namely, the soil resistance parameters
identified from the final WMAs of the EOD test and the BOD test reflect the effects of generation of excess pore
pressures during driving and subsequent dissipation of the excess pore water pressures after EOD, in other words,
the change of the effective stresses in the soil surrounding the pile.
Pile head displacement, wh (mm)
Head force, Fh (kN)

0.0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5.0
SLT
10.0
15.0
EOD
20.0
25.0
SLT
from WMA_EOD
from WMA_BOR
BOR
30.0
Figure 24. Comparison of the static load displacement curves of the TSC1 (D=700 mm).
From the result of the SLT, the measured settlement S = 9.0 mm at the working load of 1800 kN was sufficiently
smaller than the allowable value Sa = 28.4 mm. The measured settlement S = 19.0 mm at the maximum load of
3600 kN was also smaller than 70 mm that is 10% of the pile diameter, and the residual settlement S = 1.0 mm
after the full unloading process from the working load was also below the limit value Sar = 10.0 mm. All of these

values indicated that the pile did not reach the ultimate bearing state. Hence, TSC1 has a factor of safety greater
than 2 against the working load of 1800 kN.
Axial force, F (kN)
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2.00 Pa
1.75 Pa
1.50 Pa
1.00 Pa
0.75 Pa
G.L.
1.25 Pa
Pile head
-10.0
0.0
1000
0.50 Pa
-20.0
500
0.25 Pa
10.0
8
20.0
4
10
11
12
13
30.0
40.0
Pile tip
Figure 25. Calculated distributions with depth of the pile axial forces of the TSC1 at the BOR test.
As mentioned earlier, the pile head load and the pile head displacement alone were measured in the SLT. The
load-displacement curve derived from the final WMA of the BOR test was comparable with the SLT result (Fig.
24). Therefore, let us discuss more the static response of the TSC1 based on the calculated results of the BOR
test including the loading and unloading processes.
Figure 25 shows the calculated changes of distributions with depth of the axial forces in the TSC1, including the
first loading process (steps 1 to 4), the first unloading process (steps 5 to 8) and the second loading process (steps
9 to 13, see Fig. 13). The axial force at the pile tip can be regarded as the mobilised pile tip resistance. As seen
from the figure, in the first loading process from step 1 to step 4, the mobilised shaft resistance and tip resistance
increase with increase in the applied head force. At the working load, Pa = 1800 kN, the mobilised tip resistance,
Qb, and the total mobilised shaft resistance, Qs, share almost the same force, about 50% of the applied force.
When unloading to zero at step 8, axial forces remain along the embedment pile length. These residual forces
increase with depth and reach a maximum value of about 400 kN at the pile tip. When reloading to the working
load at step 9, the axial forces along the pile deeper than 15 m are greater than those in step 4 because of the
residual forces in the pile generated in the previous loading steps. When further loads are applied on the pile
head in steps 10 to 13, the mobilised shaft resistance and end-bearing resistance continue to increase, indicating
that the pile does not reach the ultimate bearing state at the maximum applied force of 3600 kN.
The TSC1 was not used for the working pile after the completion of the SLT. However, it may be interesting to
calculate the pile response, supposing that the TSC1 were loaded to the working load again after the completion
of the SLT. For this purpose, the third loading process was fictitiously added to the previous analysis.
Figure 26 shows the calculated distribution of the axial forces in the pile at the end of the third loading process,
together with those at the working load in step 4 of the first loading process and in step 9 of the second loading
process, and those at the maximum load (step 13) and full unloading step of the second loading process. The
figure indicates that when unloading to zero from the maximum load, the residual axial force is again caused
along the embedment pile length with a maximum value of 1000 kN at the pile tip which is much greater than
400 kN in the first full unloading step (step 8 in Fig. 25). At the working load, the axial forces decrease with
depth in the first and second loading processes, however, the axial force in the third loading process slightly
decrease for depths of 0 to 15 m, then increases for depths of 15 to 29 m (neutral plane) and finally decreases
with increasing depth. It is clearly seen from comparison of the axial forces in the pile at the working load in
three loading processes that the mobilised shear resistances decrease while the mobilised tip resistances increase
with increase in the number of the loading processes. Such aspect should be considered when evaluating the pile
capacity after the SLT, because the safety margin of the pile tip resistance decreases with increasing number of
loading processes in which magnitude of the maximum applied force increases in each process. This aspect will
be discussed again in later part for the TSP1, which was reused as a working pile in this site.

Axial force, F (kN)

0
1000
1500
10.0
3000
3500
4000
At 2nd full
unloading process
At 3rd loading process
4
9
13
at 1st loading
process
30.0
2.00 Pa
G.L.
20.0
40.0
2500
Pile head
-10.0
0.0
2000
1.00 Pa
-20.0
500
neutral
plane
z = 29 m
At maximum load of
2nd loading process
Pile tip
Figure 26. Calculated distributions with depth of the pile axial forces of the TSC1 at the BOR test.
Results of the TSP1
Similar to the TSC1, wave matching analysis was conducted for the TSP1, and the results of the final WMA at
the strain gauge level including axial forces, downward and upward travelling forces, velocities and
displacements are shown in Fig. 27 for the EOD test and in Fig. 28 for the BOR test. As seen from these figures,
the calculated results were comparable with the measured values, when the soil parameters shown in Fig. 29 and
Table 11 were assumed.
Note that under the impact force caused by a hammer mass of 10 ton with a falling height of 2.8 m, the measured
settlement per blow of the pile head were 0.6 mm in the EOD test and 0.3 mm in the BOR test. As seen from Fig.
28d, the calculated pile head settlement in the BOR test was comparable with the measure value of 0.76 mm.

Axial force, F (kN)
8000
Calculated force
Measured force
6000
4000
(a)
2000
0
Axial force, F (kN)
10000
10000
8000
Calculated force
Measured force
6000
4000
(a)
2000
0
-2000
-2000
0
20
40
60
80
100
10
20
Time, t (ms)
8000
6000
4000
(b)
2000
0
-2000
50
60
Measured downforce
Calculated upforce
Measured upforce
8000
6000
4000
(b)
2000
0
-2000
0
20
40
60
80
100
10
20
Time, t (ms)
30
40
50
60
Time, t (ms)
8.0
8.0
Calculated velo.
Measured velo.
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
(c)
Velocity, v (m/s)
Velocity, v (m/s)
40
10000
Measured downforce
Calculated upforce
Measured upforce
10000
Calculated velo.
Measured velo.
6.0
4.0
2.0
(c)
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-4.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
10
20
Calculated disp.
Measured disp.
30.0
20.0
(d)
10.0
0.0
50.0
40.0
30
40
50
60
Time, t (ms)
Time, t (ms)
30
Time, t (ms)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
(d)
10.0
Calculated disp.
Measured disp.
0.0
-10.0
-10.0
0
20
40
60
80
Time, t (ms)
100
20
40
60
Time, t (ms)
(a) Force. (b) Downward and upward travelling forces. (c) Velocity. (d) Displacement.
analysis of EOD test of the TSP1.

analysis of BOR test of the TSP1.
The soil parameters in the first assumption are also indicated in Fig. 29 for comparison. The values of shear
modulus, G, and the shear resistance, max, of the soil layers identified from the final WMA of the EOD test were
smaller than those from the WMA of the BOR test, indicating again that the set-up phenomenon occurred after
the rest period. Such phenomenon was also obtained for the soil at the pile tip by comparison of the identified
values, Gb and qb,max, between the EOD and BOR tests shown in Table 11.

st
Outer shear resist.

(kPa)
max
0 50 100 150 200
WMA
10
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
40
45
Pile tip
(a)
35
40
1 assump.
of EOD
of BOR
Pile tip
Inner shear resist.

(kPa)
max
0 50 100 150 200
st
1 assump.
st
WMA
10
15
35
Inner shear moduli

G (MPa)
0
100 200 300
1 assump.
5
of EOD
of BOR
st
1 assump.
Outer shear moduli

G (MPa)
0
100 200 300
WMA
of EOD
of BOR
Top of SP
10
15
45
of EOD
of BOR
15
Top of SP
20
25
25
30
30
35
35
Pile tip
(c)
45
WMA
10
20
40
(b)
Pile tip
40
(d)
45
Figure 29. Soil properties obtained from the final WMA of the TSP1 in the EOD and BOR tests.
Table 11. The soil parameters at the pile tip and soil plug base obtained from the final WMA.
1st assumption
Item
Unit
EOD test
BOR test
Shear modulus at the pile tip, Gb
MPa
20000
22000
210
Shear modulus at the soil plug base, Gsp
MPa
2000
2000
210
End bearing resistance at the pile tip, qb,max
kPa
120000
140000
15000
End bearing resistance at the soil plug base, qsp,max
kPa
1000
1000
15000
For the EOD and BOR tests, similar to the case of TSC1, the first assumption of the shear modulus estimated
from empirical equation Eq. (1) were overestimated, compared to the finally identified values (Figs. 29a and
29b). For the BOR test, the empirical equations (4) and (5) overestimated the identified shear resistances for the
soft soil layers (the first layer of the soft clay and the upper part of the second layer of clayey sand with loose
packing state), while underestimated the identified shear resistances for the hard soil layers (the lower part of the
second layer of clayey sand with medium packing state and the third layer of hard silt clay).
Axial stress in pile,

-400 -300 -200 -100
-20.0
Max tens.
stress
-10.0
at EOD
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
(MPa)
100 200 300 400

Max comp.
stress
at EOD
Seabed
Allowable
tens. stress
Max tens.
stress
at BOR
Top of the
hard silty clay
Allowable
comp.
stress
Max comp.
stress
at BOR
40.0
Figure 30. Distributions with depth of the maximum tensile and compressive stresses in the pile during driving of
the TSP1.
Let us discuss the suitability of the selected hammer for the TSP1. The calculated maximum compressive and
tensile stresses in the pile during driving in the EOD and BOR tests shown in Fig. 30 do not exceed the
allowable stresses. Therefore, the selected pile driving hammer is suitable for driving the working piles.

Figure 31 shows the static load-displacement curve derived from the soil properties identified in the final WMA,
compared with the static load test result in two cycles of loading process. The stiffness of the static response
derived from the final WMA of the BOR test was a little bit higher than that of the static response in the EOD
test. Although the rest period between the EOD and the BOR in this test (34 days) was longer than that in the
TSC1 (14 days), the difference of the derived static responses between the EOD and the BOR is not remarkable
compared to the case of TSC1. Similar to the case of the TSC1, the static response derived from the final WMA
of the BOR test was comparable with the SLT result, indicating that the identified soil parameters were
reasonable. It is noted that the derived static curve underestimated the measured curve because the set-up
phenomenon continues for 14 additional days after the BOR test.
According to the final WMA results of TSC1 (Fig. 21d) and TSP1 (Fig. 29d), the set-up phenomena of the inner
shaft resistance were negligible in these particular cases. Hence, it could be thought that the set-up phenomena
are mainly caused by the set-up of the outer shaft resistance. The different degrees of the "set-up" between the
TSC1 and the TSP1 might be explained by the different configurations of the test piles. The TSC1 had an outer
diameter of 700 mm and a wall thickness of 100 mm, while the TSP1 had an outer diameter of 1000 mm and a
wall thickness of 12 mm (see Table 3). It is reasonable to think that the TSC1 pushed away the surrounding
ground outward during driving much more than the case of the TSP1. Hence, greater excess pore-water pressures
might have been generated in the ground during driving of the TSC1. If these suppositions are adequate, it is
reasonable to state that the TSC1 had a higher degree of the "set-up" phenomenon.
Head force, Fh (kN)

0.0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10.0
20.0
SLT
30.0
BOR
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
EOD
SLT
from WMA_EOD
from WMA_BOR
100.0
Figure 31. Comparison of static load displacement curves of TSP1 (D=1000 mm)
From the results of the SLT, the measured settlement S = 25.0 mm at the working load of 4002 kN was
sufficiently smaller than the allowable value Sa = 38.6 mm. The measured settlement S = 72.0 mm at the
maximum test load of 8004 kN was also smaller than 100 mm (equal to 10% of the pile diameter). The residual
settlement S = 1.5 mm after the full unloading from the working load was also below the limit value Sar = 10.0
mm. All of these values indicated that the pile did not reach the ultimate bearing state. Hence, the TSP1 has a
factor of safety greater than 2 against the working load of 4002 kN.
Similar to the case of the TSC1, the calculated distributions of the pile axial forces at different pile head forces
ranging from 0.25 to 2.00 times of the working load Pa within 13 steps of the loading and unloading processes
for the BOR test are shown in Fig. 32. As seen from the figure, the mobilised shaft resistance and tip resistance
increase with increase in the applied head force in the first loading process (steps 1 to 4). At the working load, Pa
= 4002 kN, the mobilised tip resistance, Qb, and the total mobilised shaft resistance, Qs, were 2174 kN and 1928
kN, respectively, corresponding to about 55% and 45% of the applied force. When unloading to zero (step 8),
axial forces remain along the embedment pile length. These residual forces increase with depth and reach a
maximum value of about 735 kN at the pile tip. When reloading to the working load at step 9, the axial forces
along the pile deeper than 20 m are greater than those in step 4 because of the residual forces in the pile
generated in the previous unloading steps. At this applied force, the mobilised tip and shaft resistances were
2565 kN and 1437 kN, respectively, corresponding to 65 % and 35 % of the applied force. When further loads
are applied on the pile head in the second loading process (steps 10 to 13), the mobilised shaft resistance and tip

resistance continue to increase, indicating that the pile does not reach the ultimate bearing state at the maximum
applied force of 8004 kN.
Axial force, F (kN)

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
G.L.
0.0
2.00 Pa
1.50 Pa
1.25 Pa
1.00 Pa
0.50 Pa
-10.0
0.75 Pa
-20.0
1.75 Pa
Pile head
0.25 Pa
-30.0
10.0
2
20.0
8
10
3
6
12
13
30.0
11
Pile tip
40.0
Figure 32. Distribution with depth of pile axial forces at different applied load of TSP1 (D=1000 mm)
As previously mentioned, the TSP1 was actually used as a working pile after the SLT. Hence, in the analysis, the
TSP1 was reloaded to the working load after completion of the SLT to predict the pile response when it is used
as the working pile. The pile response at the end of the third loading process is indicated by the black dot line in
Fig. 33. At the working load of the third loading process, Pa = 4002 kN, the pile axial force reaches a maximum
value of 4102 kN at a depth z = 28.9 m (neutral plane) and the mobilised tip and shaft resistance are 3577 kN
and 425 kN, respectively. At this applied force, the mobilised tip resistance reaches about 90% of the applied
load, which is greater than that in the first loading process at step 4 (55% of Pa) and the second loading process
at step 9 (65% of Pa). Because of the higher mobilised tip resistance during this multiple loading process, TSP1
will have smaller safety factor at the pile tip compared to that of the non-tested working piles with the same pile
configuration, the same soil and driving conditions.
Axial force, F (kN)

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
-10.0
10.0
G.L.
At 2nd full loading
process

At 1st loading
process
20.0
30.0
2.00 Pa
-20.0
0.0
9000
Pile head
1.00 Pa
-30.0
neutral
z = 28.9 m
plane
13
At max.load of
2nd loading process
Pile tip
40.0
Figure 33. Calculated distributions with depth of the pile axial forces of the TSC1 at BOR test.
In order to estimate the load-displacement behaviour of the TSP1 when it is reused as a working pile after the
two loading processes of the SLT, TSP1 was further loaded in the analysis from the working load in the third
loading process until the pile reaches the ultimate bearing capacity. The calculated curve is shown in Fig. 34,
together with the SLT result. For comparison purposes, the calculated load-displacement curve of the TSP for a
monotonic loading is also shown in the figure.
It can be seen from the figure that the yield load and the ultimate bearing capacity of the TSP1 after the two
cycles of loading are smaller than those of the TSP1 subjected to only monotonic loading. Here, the yield load is
defined as a load corresponding to the maximum curvature on the load-displacement curve, and as defined
earlier, the ultimate capacity is a load corresponding to the pile head displacement, S, of 0.1D (S = 100 mm for

the TSP1). It is seen from the comparison of the two calculated relations that loading cycles have a negligible
influence on the pile head stiffness of the TSP1, whereas the yield load and the ultimate capacity of the TSP1
subjected to loading cycles are reduced, compared to those of the monotonically loaded TSP1. The values of the
ultimate capacity are 8040 kN in the former case and 9640 kN in the latter case, respectively. Reduction of the
bearing capacity of the TSP1 due to the double loading process of the SLT is 17 % compared to that of the nontested pile. In other words, although the non-tested piles would have a safety factor of 2.4, the TSP1 after the
SLT would have a safety factor of 2.0 against the design working load of Pa = 4002 when reused as a working
pile. Such reduction of the safety factor should be carefully considered when reusing the test pile as a working
pile.
Head force, Fh (kN)

0.0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
20.0
Ultimate capacity
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0 0.1D
120.0
140.0
160.0
Yield load
Measured SLT
Calculated curve
for cyclic loading
Calculated curve
for monotonic loading
180.0
Figure 34. Calculated load-displacement curves with and without cyclic loading, together with the SLT result of
TSP1.
Prediction of static load-displacement curves for other test piles
In this part, the static responses of the other two test piles, TSC2 and TSP2, are predicted using the soil
parameters identified from the final WMA analyses of TSC1 and TSP1, respectively. The predicted curves are
then compared with the load-displacement relations obtained from the static load tests. The specifications of
TSC2 and TSP2 have been indicated in Table 2 and the soil profiles have been shown in Fig. 9. The loading and
unloading processes were similar to that of the static load test described previously in Fig. 13, with maximum
test loads, Pmax, of 5170 kN for TSC2 and 7716 kN for TSP2, which are two times of the design working load for
each pile (see Table 8).
Although the ground at each location of the test piles consisted again of three soil layers of soft clay, clayey sand
and hard silt clay, thicknesses of the soil layers vary from location to location as shown in Fig. 9. Hence, for the
analyses of the TSC2 and the TSP2, the soil parameters were estimated as follows. In each layer, the average
values of the identified soil parameters surrounding TSC1 and TSP1 were used for the soil parameters of TSC2
and TSP2, respectively, while the identified soil parameters at the pile tip and the soil plug base of TSC1 and
TSP1 were used for TSC2 and TSP2, respectively.
The predicted and measured curves are shown in Fig. 35 for TSC2 and in Fig. 36 for TSP2. Similarly to TSC1
and TSP1, the ultimate states of these two test piles are not reached at the applied load of 2Pa in both the
measurements and the calculations. Hence, it can be judged that the TSC2 and TSP2 have a factor of safety
greater than 2 against the working loads of 2585 kN and 3858 kN, respectively.
As seen from these two figures, the predicted curves are comparable with the measured ones, indicating that the
identified soil parameters of the two tested piles, TSC1 and TSP1, are reasonable. The soil parameters identified
from the WMA could be used to adequately estimate the static responses of the other non-tested working piles in
this construction site. This means that the WMA of DLTs using the proposed approach can be a practical
alternative to the conventional static load test.

Head force, Fh (kN)

0.0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Measured SLT
Predicted SLT
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Figure 35. Comparison of the static load displacement curves of the TSC2 (D=800 mm)
Head force, Fh (kN)

0.0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
Measured SLT
Predicted SLT
60.0
Figure 36. Comparison of the static load displacement curves of the TSP2 (D=900 mm)
CONCLUSIONS
Dynamic and static load tests were conducted on the four test piles with different specifications at the
construction site of Thi Vai International Port in Vung Tau province, Viet Nam with the purpose of obtaining the
design parameters, selecting the appropriate driving hammer and seeking quality assessment methods for the
constructed piles.
This paper first described the test piling in detail including objectives, site conditions, preliminary pile design
and results of the SLTs. Then, wave matching analyses (WMAs) of the DLTs of the two test piles, TSC1 and
TSP1, at initial driving and re-striking were conducted using the numerical approach developed by the authors,
to identify the soil resistance distributions and derive the corresponding static load-displacement relations using
the soil parameters identified in the final WMA. Furthermore, the influence of cyclic loading process on the pile
response was analytically examined.
The soil parameters identified from the WMAs of the BOR tests were also used to predict the load-displacement
relations of the other test piles, TSC2 and TSP2, having different pile configurations and soil profiles from those
of TSC1 and TSP1.
The major results of the SLTs and the driving work of the TSC1 and TSP1 are as follows:
1. The bearing capacities of the two test piles exceed two times the design working loads.

2. Termination criteria based on the maximum value of settlement per blow estimated from the Hiley type
formula with an ultimate bearing capacity estimated from an empirical equation based on SPT N-values
can be adequately used for controlling the driving work.
From the WMAs of the TSC1 and TSP1, the following findings and implications were drawn:
3. The static load-displacement curves derived from the final WMAs of DLTs were comparable with the
results obtained from the SLTs.
4. The piles which have been subjected to cyclic loading have smaller yield and ultimate capacities
compared to the piles subjected to monotonic loading.
5. WMA using the proposed numerical approach can be used to predict the static load-displacement curves
of the non-tested working piles based on the identified soil parameters of the tested piles.
6. The set-up phenomenon was clearly found from the EOD test, through the BOR test, to the SLT. The
thickness of the pile wall might have a great influence on the degree of set-up phenomenon.
7. Shear moduli of soils to be used in WMA of piles at this particular site can be estimated from shear
moduli at small strain level with reduction factors, about 0.1 for soft soils, 0.15 to 0.20 for medium soils
and 0.25 to 0.40 for hard soils.
8. Selection of the pile driving hammer based on the empirical equation in this study is reasonable, because
the maximum compressive and tensile stresses along the pile calculated in the WMAs do not exceed the
allowable values.
From the SLT results, TSC2 and TSP2 also had the bearing capacities of more than two times the design
working loads. Load-displacement curves of TSC2 and TSP2 predicted using the soil parameters identified from
the WMAs of TSC1 and TSP1 were comparable with the measured ones. This encourages the use of the WMA
procedure proposed by the authors as a practical alternative to the conventional static load test.
Although the applicability of the WMA to quality assessment of constructed piles was demonstrated in this study,
it is desired to collect more case histories in Viet Nam for improving the current pile design and pile driving
control methods.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express our appreciation to the VIBROBIS- South VietNam Bridge Road Building
Technology Institute, Viet Nam, the ANH VU Geotechnical and Civil Engineering Company, and the PentaRinkal Joint Venture for permission of using the static and dynamic load test results in this paper. The authors
are thankful to Associate Professor Shun-ichi Kobayashi of Kanazawa University for his encouragements during
preparation of this paper.
REFERENCES
Imai, T. (1977). P- and S-wave velocities of the ground in Japan. Proc. 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, 2, 257-260.
ICSMFE Publisher.
Newmark, NM. (1959). A method of computation for structural dynamics. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE 85(EM3), 67-94, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston VA.
Paikowsky, SG., Whitman, RV. and Baligh, MM. (1989). A new look at the phenomenon of offshore pile
plugging. Marine Geo-resources Geotech., 8, 213-230. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon OX.
Paik, K., Salgado, R., Lee, J. and Kim, B. (2003). Behaviour of open- and closed-ended piles driven into sand.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, ASCE, 129(4), 296-306, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston VA.
Phan, T.L., Matsumoto, T. and Kobayashi, S. (2012). A matrix method of wave propagation analysis in an
open-ended pipe pile based on equation of motion. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Testing and Design Methods for
Deep Foundations, Kanazawa, Japan, 105-112. Kanazawa e-Publishing Co., Ltd.
Randolph, MF., Deeks, AJ. (1992). Dynamic and static soil models for axial response. Proc. 4th Int. Conf.
Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, The Hague, 3-14. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Brookfield VT.
ASTM D1143-81. Standard test method for piles under axial compressive load.
ASTM D4945-00. Standard test method for high-strain dynamic testing of piles.
TCXDVN 205-1998. Pile foundation- Specifications for design.
TCXDVN 286-2003. Pile driving and static jacking works - Standard for construction, check and acceptance.
TCXDVN 269-2002. Piles- Standard test method for piles under axial compressive load.

The International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories

(IJGCH) is funded by:
Email us at journal@geoengineer.org if your company wishes to fund the International Journal of Geoengineering
Case Histories.

Comparison of Static and Dynamic Pile Load Tests at Thi Vai International Port in Viet Nam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison of Static and Dynamic Pile Load Tests at Thi Vai International Port in Viet Nam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison of Static and Dynamic Pile Load Tests at Thi Vai

International Port in Viet Nam

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 36

Figure 1. Location of the site (with Vietnam on the left).

Figure 2. Photo of the berth area prior to use.

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 37

SITE AND TEST DESCRIPTION

BOREHOLE, BH1 to BH30

TEST PILE TSC1

TEST PILE TSC2

TEST PILE TSP1

Batter pile (D800)

Figure 3. Locations of the boreholes, test piles and working piles.

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 38

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 39

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 40

G0 98 120 N 0.737 (kPa)

Estimated shear modulus, G0 (MPa)

Distance from seabed, z (m)

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 41

Table 1. Working load and corresponding allowable settlement.

Table 2. Required capacity.

Required capacity (kN)

Qu qmax Ap max,i As,i

max = 2N (kPa) for sand (limit value = 100 kPa)

9000 12000 15000

Distance from seabed, z (m)

9000 12000 15000

Estimated ultimate capacity, Qu (kN)

9000 12000 15000

Top of the hard

Estimated ultimate capacity, Qu (kN)

Distance from seabed, z (m)

Distance from seabed, z (m)

Distance from seabed, z (m)

Estimated ultimate capacity, Qu (kN)

9000 12000 15000

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 42

Test pile driving

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 43

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 44

The sequence of the driving work of the test piles is as follows:

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 45

Table 7. Schedule for the test piles.

Dynamic load tests of TSC1 and TSP1

Figure 10. Illustration of the test pile driving by diesel hammer.

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 46

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 47

Uplift capacity (kN)

Distance from seabed, z (m)

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Figure 13. Loading process in SLTs.

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 48

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 49

added soil mass at the soil plug base:

added soil mass at the annular pile base:

(per unit area)

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 50

SPT N-value TSC1

Depth from G.L. (m)

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 51

SPT N-value TSP1

Calculated force at pile head

International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories , Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 52